Nobody's nose (& other indivisible protrubances)

An expert analysis of faith and the lack of it. To put your mind at ease, or otherwise…

Does God exist and if so, what is our essential existential relationship with our creator, congruent to every other living being? Is it scrutable to rational probing or merely childish wish-fulfillment? Do atheists really believe in nothing? Are agnostics simply hedging their bets? Is religion or science the opium of the masses? Are we addicted to dreams that can never come true or nightmares that seem to prove it? How can everything die in the end if it had no beginning? Do human- beings have an exceptional relationship to creation or is that but vanity to cloud an unclear conscience? Are we am because we think we are? Or are we aren’t because we sometimes feel we’re not? These are the issues confronting every great mind that meets itself coming back from an awards ceremony and realizing at least one of them is drunk on the champagne of its’ own success. The following is a leaky transcript of their victory speech…

“To deny there is a cause does not deny the possibility of seeking one. As a necessary conditiion for not being dogmatic. In truth it is a necessary condition. To deny necessity is to deny congruency. The reasonability that every living thing has a relevance, not just to its’ own existence. It is the essence of inescapability from thought. Though not necessarily merely analytic. Not presumptive. Should one consider congruence as presumptive. And presumption as dogmatic. One could just as easily consider experience as proof of existence. And existence as un-presumptive. Merely analytic. Undefined by essence. Should necessity prove un-essentially nothing. And would there never be an end to it? Unless our end truly proves to be our beginning. Which we must consider significantly unprovable. Cognitive dissonance. Should knowledge be the end of existence? The road to nowhere. Presuming that nowhere is where knowledge can only lead us. Some self-contradicting unreality of a belief based on the merely analytic and congruential. Without reason, rationality has no basis in fact. Presuming the facts were only congruent in the first place. And only death is analytic. Forensic. No basis in anything but nothing. And would that be the damnation of the soul? Presumptive of a heaven and a hell. Definably dogmatic. Tangential. Should nothing good ever come of all this. If this is all there is. And should we ever underestimate sufficiency as a physical if not a metaphysical option? At the expense of eternity? If nothing goes on forever, where does that leave us? Disagreeably argumentative? Merely analytic. Forensically fanatic? Incongruently self-destructive? Or, at best defiantly non-deluded. And I should leave it at that. Otherwise, I may be going on forever…”